George Clinton

You and your child are lost in a desert for days, dying slowly of dehydration, when off in the distance you notice a house. Upon reaching the house, you come to find a pack of bottled water sitting on the porch. You knock on the door but there is nobody home to ask if it is okay for you to have a bottle. What is the right thing to do, steal the water, or wait and die?

If all you are going to do is be dismissive, go and answer other questions please.

Like this very question.

Do you now understand what a false premise is?

I am interested in finding video recorded debates between informed liberals and Libertarians. What I mean by informed is, people who actually study politics, not just "average Joe" libtard and "average Joe" libertard. Formal would be nice, but informal is fine, just as long as the people actually know what they are talking about to a fair degree.

Okay so this is a question regarding forced vaccination. This is a morality question and whether or not coercion is acceptable in the scenarios presented.

Scenario 1:

There is a deadly plague ravaging the nation. There is a vaccination for this disease, and the government is forcing everybody to be vaccinated, or be placed in quarantine camps consisting of those who refuse to be vaccinated. This is a very serious disease, there is no doubt that it is happening, and it is very deadly.

So the question is, whose rights matter more? On one hand, being forced to be vaccinated is coercion, of course, but on the other hand, those people who would refuse vaccination are putting others at serious risk. The people who are vaccinated have no choice but to be endangered by your choice to not accept vaccination, which is also coercion. And before we get conspiracy nuts in here, lets assume the vaccine is about as safe as a vaccine can get, there is no hidden agenda, it does what it is supposed to do, and only what it is supposed to do.

What is the right thing to do?

Scenerio 2:

There is a deadly disease that has not reached epidemic/plague like proportions but it is contagious and very deadly. There is a vaccine available, and you are being forced to be vaccinated etc etc. You are not going to be placed into quarantine camps, or any sort of jail or the like, but you will receive a hefty fine if you choose to opt out.

So in this scenario, what is the right thing to do? Please answer the same questions posed in scenario one.

I ask this of Libertarians because it is a pretty serious conundrum for libertarian philosophy in particular. However, feel free to answer no matter what your political philosophy is.

First there was Clint Eastwood talking to a chair, now Glenn beck wants to talk the the man in the moon? Seriously, what's next, Limbaugh going to have a chat with some Oxycontin?

I know Michigan and Wisconsin both have police liaison officers in their schools, and at least some of them are armed. I am wondering if there are other states with a similar "program," and which states.

Perhaps those who feel that urge to kill after watching such media just need a higher prescription of guns to fix the problem?

I have asked this in many places, and have never once gotten a response...

If you know "they" (I assume the government) are dumping dangerous chemicals us, or whatever it is that you think they are dumping on us. Why are you, and those in the know, not walking around in gas masks, or other protective gear? Why would they purposely poison the entire populace, including themselves and their own family and friends?

The Christian God I assume...

All the answers I have found are a bit ambiguous. I See Mormons say they believe Jesus is the son of God, and that he is part of the holy trinity, but I don't find them claiming, directly, that Jesus is God.

I know that "traditional" Christians use these sorts of ambiguous "labels" as well, but they claim he is God in the flesh, and the trinity is just God's different forms, rather than 3 separate entities. And therefore Jesus is God.

https://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=off&tbo=d&sclie...

How dare these anti Christmas buffoons call Christmas, "holiday?" It's like they are having a war on Christmas or something.

When libtards challenge contards on their outright bigotry, we are not stifling your free speech. You are free to go ahead and say anything you like. The thing contards seem to not comprehend is that words have meaning, and saying anything has consequences, good or bad. And when somebody finds your bullshit repulsive, we also have the right to freely speak our minds. You contards act like we have no right to challenge anything you say, lest we infringe on your free speech rights. The irony here is, you are the ones attempting to silence your opposition, and perverting the very idea of free speech rights in the process. Using free speech rights as a weapon to silence your opposition is absolutely disgusting.

You are entitled to your opinion just as much as we libtards are entitled to ours. Go ahead and say whatever you like, but don't expect me to keep quite when you say something stupid.

I sure would, but that is because I am an immoral atheist.

And by "officially," I mean, they are not petitions necessarily launched, or supported by state officials/representatives. Or represent an official majority vote by the people of any particular state.

Any Tom, Dick, or Harry can launch a petittion on this ( https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/homepage ) website, or elsewhere, for anything they like. You could petition the government to outlaw all drinks that do not contain alcohol if you like. Does not matter who you are or what you think you want.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/peaceful...

^^^Sign^^^

So far they have over 100k signatures. With some liberal support, who knows, they may just get what they are asking for.

He was hardly even mentioned. I sort of feel bad for him. He is being treated like the red headed step child.

Do you think it would have hurt Romneys campaign even more, to have W by his side? And if so, why?

Were all subsequent amendments to the constitution anti-american? Or was article 5 placed in the constitution for good purpose?

Just trying to figure out if the constitution is a living document, or if it set in stone. And if so, since when, what day and year?

Or perhaps I am not understanding what conservatives mean when they say it is not a living document. In which case, please do enlighten.

more or less hates you for who you are?

Forget about gay marriage, or gay rights at all. I am honestly curious how it makes you feel to have similar ideals to a party that doesn't even recognize your existence? They apparently don't care if you vote for them or not, they won't invite you to their events. And they surely aren't coming to any of your events.

This is an honest question, I am not trying to be sarcastic, or trying to take a shot at anybody.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBvtIKEO4pQ

These self righteous assholes want to put their religious symbols up in respect for the Christians who died during 9/11. However they don't want to allow any other people of other faiths to put up there symbols, and what not, in respect to the dead of their faith....